Friday, August 03, 2012

Thoughts on Divine Healing

By Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong

The following excerpts are from a Facebook thread that was originally a prayer request. I got into a lengthy discussion about miraculous healing: when God does it, why He does, the relation of faith and healing, etc. My job as an apologist is to explain and defend Church (and biblical) teaching, and so I was using this situation as an opportunity to expand upon the proper theology of supernatural healing and miracles in general.

* * * * *

Supernatural healings are rare events. I believe in miracles. My wife and I both believe that God has directly healed us of some things. I pray for them. I also believe that God has the final say as to whether they occur, not us. In the meantime, God has given medical professionals the wisdom to effect natural cures in many if not most cases. The end result is the same: whether it comes about through natural or supernatural means.

We all die at some point. Whenever someone dies, then that is an instance where they were not healed. It's not always God's will to heal. Paul had a thorn in the flesh (many Bible scholars believe it was an eye disease). He asked God to take it away. God said no. I think we'd all agree that Paul had tremendous faith. It didn't matter. God said no to his request because it wasn't His will. He said His grace was sufficient, minus the healing.

There are many other similar examples. The physical suffering of the saints alone massively demonstrates this. Job was the most righteous man on the earth. He went through tremendous physical and emotional suffering, and God didn't take that away, despite his righteousness.

I just want to make clear what the biblical and Catholic position on healing is. We are to pray for it. Miracles are always rare and extraordinary by definition. Sometimes God will say no, because He knows all things, and His plans for our lives don't usually line up with what we think will or should happen. He uses suffering in His overall purpose as well, which is why we had the passion and crucifixion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, martyrs, and the suffering (and often, early deaths) of virtually all saints all through history.

* * *

Lots of folks out there are pushing false teachings about healing (and "prosperity") and it has caused great suffering and disenchantment for many thousands when they discover that the false teachings do not work in real life.

We mustn't reject miracles and healing (we are to pray for them) or, on the other hand, think they are ours to command. A happy medium or golden mean, exists, as in most matters in Christianity.

* * *

The next life is the key to the whole thing, which is why Paul said the sufferings of the present time can't be compared to what awaits us. But he doesn't deny that we suffer here, which is the thing to note there. God does answer all our prayers: with a yes or a no (as in Paul's case).

Obviously, if we ask something clearly against His will (such as a person to be murdered or some terrible thing), He won't answer. It has to be in His will. I'm saying that it is not always His will to heal, and I'll be happy to back that up with many biblical examples.

* * *

God's sovereignty goes far beyond our "positivity" and "negativity" (which is not biblical terminology but that of pop psychology). The primary factor in any miracle is God's will and what He wants to accomplish, not our lack of faith or "positivity." That places man far too high in the scheme of things.

Jesus raised Lazarus not because his sister was "positive" and giddy with faith (she was upset, and Jesus Himself wept: John 11:33-35), but because it was His will.

* * *

Faith is not unrelated to healing, but neither is not the direct one-on-one relationship: as if it is some kind of magical power that we have. Not so! We can or may have all the faith in the world (as Paul did with his "thorn") but if it it isn't God's will to heal in the particular case, He won't, because He's in control, not us and can see the whole picture (being omniscient and sovereign) in a way that we never could. St. Paul couldn't get healed in his case, and couldn't heal others (Trophimus) when it wasn't God's will.

As for this business about someone having faith as a "stand-in", okay, let's test that. Someone says they have a lot of faith? Cool! Why don't they spend all day, then, going to hospitals and clearing all the floors of sick people with their extraordinary faith? If a stand-in is all we need, then there should be no hospital in the world with sick people in it. For certainly, we can find some saintly person somewhere who has the faith to heal all of them, if this indeed were true. If I had that power I'd spend all of my time visiting hospital after hospital.

But it's not true. It's a distortion of biblical and Catholic teaching: not taught anywhere in the magisterial documents. The Church believes in miracles and healings, and we can and should pray for them (I did myself in this thread): just not in this manner that the "hyper-faith" / "name-it-claim-it" outlook does. That is an extreme view: influenced by occultic and New Age notions that come from outside of Christianity, as many books on the topic have documented.

I defend, by the way, the Catholic charismatic movement on my blog, in three papers, so no one can make the accusation that I believe this way because I am "anti-charismatic." I am pro-Catholic and pro-Bible, and neither teaches the distorted notions of healing described.

* * *

I was told that Jesus didn't do any miracles in his hometown, Nazareth, because of the general lack of faith.

Matthew 13:58 (RSV) And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

It was not no miracles, but rather, not "many." When people didn't have faith, Jesus didn't do miracles to "dazzle them" and make them believe. That wasn't what He was about.

It doesn't follow, however (either logically or in practice), that miracles are inevitably or always brought about just because a human being can muster up enough faith and "positivity." That is a pernicious error, and those who have believed it have often been brought to despair because of their false expectations from a false teaching.

* * *

Faith is an important consideration in miracles, but it is also true that there is not an absolute equation of more faith = more miracles, or faith required in each and every case. If someone is so convinced that the hyper-faith conception of healing and ministries is correct, they ought to produce magisterial documents to back it up. They can't find anything in official Catholic documents that would teach that God always heals, or that He will always heal provided only that someone has enough faith for Him to do so, or that faith alone automatically brings it about as if by magic or rote. Show us these documents! I follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church, and will be happily corrected by her if anyone shows me documents that prove I am wrong in what I am asserting.

It was stated that Jesus healed everyone who came to Him in faith and asked for healing. That may indeed be the case (I believe it is), yet after He ascended to heaven it has not remained true that all who go to God and ask for healing are healed. Jesus is God, and God turned Paul down when he wanted to be healed. Why couldn't Paul be healed? Why couldn't he always heal others? Is his example not relevant to us today?Even if it were true that Jesus healed everyone within His eyesight or those who specifically came up to Him, it wouldn't follow that this is an ironclad principle for all-time: that God now heals all who come to Him in faith. Paul's example alone is enough to disprove that. Trophimus apparently sought him out for healing, but Paul couldn't do it. Paul recommended to Timothy, wine for his stomach, rather than healing the stomach. Yet in another place Paul's handkerchiefs healed people.

From the entire biblical data, then, we conclude that God desires to heal some, even many, but not all, and we can make no rule by which God will "always" heal based on someone's faith or anything else. That's the gist of what I'm saying. It's the extreme that I oppose, not healing itself, which I have always accepted, and have experienced myself (so has my wife).

St. Paul:

2 Corinthians 12:7-9 (RSV) And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. [8] Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; [9] but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Paul also refers to his bodily illness:

Galatians 4:13-14 you know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; [14] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches exactly as I did above, using the same example of Paul's thorn:

1508 The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen Lord. But even the most intense prayers do not always obtain the healing of all illnesses. Thus St. Paul must learn from the Lord that "my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness," and that the sufferings to be endured can mean that "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church."

Paul had a disease. He refers to being chronically ill in another place:

2 Corinthians 1:8-10 (NASB) . . . our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life, indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves in order that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a peril of death.

If it is argued that he was a special case, and had to undergo sufferings we are not intended to experence, that doesn't work, because he calls us to imitate him, and says he is our model (therefore, we should all pray to suffer as he did with illness, rather than be healed of all of them):

Philippians 3:17 (NASB) Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word with much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit (cf. Hebrews 6:12, James 5:10-11).

Galatians 4:12 I beg of you brethren, become as I am.

And again, Paul teaches that what he went through, we should also, if we truly want to follow Jesus and to be more and more like Him:

2 Corinthians 1:5-7 (RSV) . . . the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance . . . if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation . . . patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer . . . as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.

4 comments:

I love to quote the words of saint Augustine : God can and does things (sometimes , or even often ) against our will but never against our own interest . So yes , it is true that even when God says no to us , even when we ask and pray with faith and fervently , if He says no , then He says no because it is better for us and it`s for our own good .Let me give an example : If my son for example , when he was a child , if he had asked me even fervently to give him a knife , do you think that saying yes to him means that i love him? or do you think that saying no to him means that i hate him? of course not , i said no because i love him and because i care for him and didn`t want him to hurt himself . It doesen`t matter if he cried and yelled and insisted , still my no was for his own good , even though he didn`t understand completely or at all the why not . No if i as a father , even though i am far from being perfect , can and do sometimes say no to my children because i love them , do you think that our perfect loving heavenly Father is evil when he tells us no? of course not . So let us learn how to trust our Heavenly Father and learn to truly always tell Him , they will be done ....Someone of course could argue , that a child asking for a knife is very different from a child asking to be healed . True it is , but still even sickness and sufferings sometimes are both necessary for us . Archbishop Fulton Sheen once gave an example of his father when he took him to the dentist , the boy (Fulton ) did not like it of course (who would ?) but still even though Fulton suffered and wanted his father to stop the dentist from hurting him , but his father did not stop the doctor,why not?because he needed to cure the tooth .Another example for the necessaty of suffering is the example of gold in the furnace . No fire , no heat and with no heat the gold will not become pure ...Thank you Dave for mentioning this very important subject .GBU

Thank you for speaking so clearly on an important topic. I have seen health and prosperity messages steal faith, divide families and friends, and take focus off God Himself. God be praised for your clear teaching.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).